Abortion Is Wrong- Part 2
Debate Rounds (3)
To pick up where we left off, I want to start by first stating that not many philosophers are correct in their created definitions and theories. Second I'd like to confront your logic with the check. You say: "Now, would you not agree that the sole person responsible for a cheque could destroy that cheque should he or she find reason to do so?" This flawed logic because the check is the sole property of the owner. The baby inside the mother is not her sole property that she gets to treat however she might please. The only time the fetus MIGHT be able to be considered property is when the fetus is not, in fact, human. I have already proven it is.
Now moving along to your problem with my statements, I want to clearly explain why we humans have value. There are 2 basic reasons, but only one will be acceptable in this debate.
1. Because God (the Christian God to be clear), has given us worth.
2. Simply because society gives it to us.
I will proceed with the latter argument because we are not here to discuss the existence of a god. I say society has given us because we have established laws that outlaw the destruction of other human lives. This in itself implies we have value. And please note these laws are not common only to the West, almost universally these laws protecting human life from other humans have been established. This means universally, we have value simply because we are humans. So the termination of a child, even if it's only in the womb, is not permissable.
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for doing me the honor of challenging me to another debate, and by apologizing for taking so long to accept it.
In this debate, Pro asserts that we as human beings have value because society assigns value to us. He points out that societies everywhere, virtually without fail, have laws against the unjustified killing of other humans, and that this is clear support of the idea that human beings have value. For simplicity's sake, I will not contest Pro's claim that these laws are universal, and I won't contest the implied claim that these laws universally protect human life from birth. However, I have two contentions that negate this resolution:
1. A society having a rule against an action does not prove that the action is wrong.
2. The fact that some societies do not have laws against abortion shows that there is a difference between the permissibility of abortion and the permissibility of murder.
Pro claims that the only source of human value necessary to establish the resolution is the fact that societies universally protect human life with laws against murder and negigent or involuntary manslaughter. However, there are a couple of problems with this idea. The first is that it's perfectly logical to assume that the only reason societies protect human life is that a society cannot function without that protection rather than because of any special moral value to human life in general. The second is that even if you were to assume that societies make laws entirely on moral grounds, this is not necessarily the same thing as making laws on correct moral grounds. For instance, many societies permitted slavery in the past.
Pro claims that the value of humans should prove that abortion is wrong. However, even assuming that pro is right and that comon laws against murder prove that society gives us value, many societies do not have laws against abortion. In the UK, Canada, and the United States, for instance, murder is legal. By Pro's own argument, society does not give fetuses value, and abortion is acceptable.
The resolution has been negated.
rugbypro5 forfeited this round.
LayTheologian forfeited this round.
rugbypro5 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.